Madras High Court
M/S Winsome Industries vs Venugopal Reddy on 26 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 22.09.2025 Judgment pronounced on : 26.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CMP. No.22572 of 2024
in AS.SR. No.116084 of 2024
M/s Winsome Industries,
G-I A, SITCO, Hosur,
represented by the proprietor,
Balakrishna Reddy,
S/o.Pappaiah Reddy,
Jeemangalam Village,
Bagalur Post, Hosur Taluk. ..Appellant
Vs.
1.Venugopal Reddy
2.Govinda Reddy
3.Saraswathi
4.Subramani
5.Lakshmi Narayanan
6.Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Special Recovery Branch Office,
Vaalmeeki Street, Subramaniya Nagar,
Salem:5. ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation
Act, to condone the delay of 4591 days in filing the above Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Mukunth,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.Nicholas
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Sriram,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.Murali for R1 to R5
No Appearance for R6
ORDER
The petitioner has filed an Application seeking condonation of delay of
4591 days in filing the First Appeal.
2. I have heard Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned
Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Murali, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5.
3. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would first and foremost contend that though the delay appears to be huge in
numbers, the petitioner has, in fact, been able to demonstrate satisfactory
reasons for condonation of the said delay in preferring the First Appeal.
4. Mr.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the
suit has been filed for partition of joint family property amongst eight members
in O.S. No.188 of 2004. The defendants 1, 4 and 5 and husband of the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
defendant had sold their shares to the second defendant. The second defendant
had mortgaged the property with Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation
Limited, (TIICL) and in view of the default committed by the second defendant,
the property was brought for sale in public auction on 23.04.2004 and the
revision petitioner was the successful bidder and he has purchased the property
in said auction.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the second suit
was filed in O.S. No.1 of 2007 against TIICL as well as the revision petitioner
to declare the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner as null and void.
The said suit came to be decreed on 29.10.2011. It is the specific contention of
the learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Mukunth, that the counsel for the revision
petitioner died on the very next day i.e., on 30.10.2011 and the auction
purchaser had no notice about the proceedings and there was no occasion for
the petitioner to challenge the decree passed in O.S.No.1 of 2007.
6. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that only when
the respondents had moved an Application in CMP. No.12865 of 2024 in A.S.
No.823 of 2008, the petitioner was put on notice about the exparte decree and
immediately, he has taken steps to apply for certified copy and thereafter, filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
the Appeal with the delay petition. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore
states that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and only in view of the
demise of the counsel who was appearing and advising the petitioner, the
petitioner was in dark and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton.
7. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Mukunth would also state that as
against the same property in respect of the suit for partition, First Appeal is
pending in A.S. No.823 of 2008 and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to
the respondents, if the delay is condoned and the present Appeal is also heard
along with other Appeal in A.S. No.823 of 2008.
8. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel also relied on the decision of
this Court, in Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department, Trivandrum Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District Vs.
Ambasamudram Taluk, Ambasamudram Vetta Thirukoil, Paniyalargal Sangam
Reg. No.500/TNL, rep. through its Secretary, P.Ramasamy and others, reported
in, 2006 (1) CTC 45, where this Court held that while considering condonation
of delay Applications, the Court should not start with the presumption that the
delay is deliberate or malafide as a litigant does not stand to benefit by
resorting to delay and that therefore, a justice-oriented approach should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
adopted, if sufficient cause for condonation of delay is shown in institution of
the Appeal, then irrespective of length of the delay, the Court should consider
allowing the condonation of delay application on the basis of substantial justice
and not refuse to condone delay on a technical approach.
9. Per contra, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents would state that the affidavit filed in support of the Application
for condonation of delay does not make out any sufficient cause for condoning
the huge delay of close to 13 years. He would point out that the petitioner had
entered appearance in the suit and even filed the written statement and
thereafter, did not choose to contest the suit.
10. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram would further invite my
attention to the dates which are pleaded by the petitioner for explaining the
delay and referring to the same, he would state that the petitioner admits to
have knowledge about the decree passed only when he was served with an
Application in CMP. No.12865 of 2024, however, which was on 10.06.2024.
However, there is no explanation as to why Copy Application was made only
on 30.07.2024 and despite copies being ready on 06.08.2024, the appeal has
not been filed until 29.08.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
11. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that even the Appeal
was filed at the first instance without certified copies of the judgement and
decree on 30.08.2024 and subsequently, only on 10.09.2024, the appeal was re-
presented with the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
It is therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram,
that the petitioner has been careless and he has only tried to take advantage of
the fact that his counsel passed away on the very next day of the suit being
decreed by the Trial Court. He would also point out that the Copy Application
has been filed through the very same Office and in fact, the son of the earlier
Counsel was very much an Advocate in the same Office and in the connected
proceedings also, the very same Counsel has been advising the petitioner.
When the petitioner was fully aware of the matter being subjudice in the suit for
partition and an Appeal has also been filed before this Court even in the year
2008, to contend that the petitioner was totally in dark and did not know about
the proceedings is totally unbelievable. In fact, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior
Counsel would also point out to the counter filed to the Application for
condonation of the delay, where the respondent has clearly stated that the
petitioner is a court bird and he is not illiterate and there has been not only a
huge delay of 13 years, but the delay is inordinate and unexplained as well. He
would further point out that if the delay is to be calculated from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
filing of the written statement in the suit, it would be more than 17 years.
Therefore, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel would state that absolutely
no indulgence should be shown to the petitioner.
12. As regards the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
Mr.S.Mukunth, that since there is connected proceedings pending before this
Court in A.S. No.823 of 2008, no prejudice would be caused if the delay is
condoned and the Appeal is taken on file, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior
Counsel would contend that the decree in the other suit has nothing to do with
the present suit in O.S. No.01 of 2007 and therefore, he would contend that the
appeals need not be heard together. He would therefore pray for the dismissal
of the Application. In support of his contention, he would rely on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar and Another Vs. Ved
Prakash, reported in 2024 INSC 891.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel on either side. I have also gone through the records including
the order of the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
14. The revision petitioner herein is the second defendant in O.S. No.1 of
2007 before the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri. The revision
petitioner is an auction purchaser, the auction having been conducted by the
first defendant, TIICL. TIICL was a defendant in the other suit for partition
in O.S. No.188 of 2004 and the petitioner is the successful auction purchaser in
respect of Item 7 to 9 and 11. Admittedly, sale deed has also been executed and
registered in favour of the revision petitioner. Not only TIICL, but also the
revision petitioner is a party defendant in O.S. No.188 of 2004. In fact,
challenging the preliminary decree, it is the petitioner who has preferred an
Appeal before this Court in A.S. No.823 of 2008.
15. In order to explain the delay of 4591 days, the petitioner has given
the following reasons in the affidavit:-
(i) The petitioner has engaged an Advocate by name Mr.N.S.Sankara
Narayanan at Krishnagiri and vakalat and written statement was filed in O.S.
No.1 of 2007.
(ii) The learned counsel did not provide any intimation regarding the trial
of the suit.
(iii) The health of the Advocate was affected and he was bedridden for
more than six months in the year 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
(iv) His Office could not concentrate on the pending cases in the Courts
at Krishnagiri.
(v) The Advocate Mr.N.S.Sankara Narayanan, died on 30.10.2011, one
day after the decree was passed on 29.10.2011.
(vi) Even after the demise of his Counsel, his office could not
concentrate on any of the cases for six months, due to his ill health and upto his
demise on 30.10.2011 and subsequently.
(vii) The respondents 1 to 5 have suppressed the suit in O.S. No.188 of
2004 in the present suit.
(viii) Only when the plaintiffs in O.S. No.188 of 2004, filed CMP.
No.12865 of 2024 to receive the certified copies of the judgment and decree
dated 29.10.2011 in O.S. No.1 of 2007, the petitioner came to know about the
exparte decree having been passed on 29.10.2011. Therefore, it is contended
that the delay neither wilfull nor wanton, but only on account of the petitioner
being kept in the dark which was also on account of ill health of his counsel
who also subsequently died.
16. The said application has been strongly resisted by the respondents 1
to 5 by filing a detailed counter affidavit. The sum and substance of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
counter affidavit is that:-
(i) the reasons assigned by the petitioner for the delay are false and
misleading and invented for the purpose of condonation of delay.
(ii) The respondents have disclosed the pendency of O.S. No.188 of 2004
and the allegation that they have suppressed the same is incorrect.
(iii) The petitioner has been hotly contesting the suit from inception and
in fact, the suit itself was filed by the respondents has indigent persons and
even the Application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC was opposed by the
revision petitioner.
(iv) Written statement was filed as early as 06.08.2007 and thereafter, the
petitioner did not diligently follow up the matter, which has alone resulted in
the exparte decree being passed.
(v) The petitioner is not an illiterate person and has served as Minister in
the Government of Tamil Nadu and therefore, he cannot claim to be ignorant of
court procedure.
(vi) The son of the Counsel, Mr.N.S.Sankara Narayanan, is also a
practicing Advocate in the same Office and therefore, to blame the counsel for
non appearance of the revision petitioner is not in good taste.
(vii) The petitioner has not chosen to follow up the case for 17 long years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
after filing the written statement which cannot be an accepted conduct of any
litigant.
(viii) The learned counsel who was engaged by the petitioner was a
leading Senior Advocate in Krishnagiri and the petitioner, who also hails from
nearby Hosur Taluk would have surely got to know about the demise of the
counsel and in any event, the petitioner has to blame himself for not contacting
the son of his counsel viz., Mr.N.S.Raja Ganesh who has been continuing to
run the Office, after the demise of his father N.S.Sankara Narayanan.
(ix) Having slept over the matter for more than 13 years atleast, if not 17
years, the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of this Court, especially when he
regularly purchases litigation properties for throw away prices in his name and
also in the name of close relatives and namesake Companies. The respondents
are all Senior Citizens and if the delay is condoned, then they will not be able to
see finality of litigation, during their lifetime.
17. No doubt, the length of delay is 4591 days. The only ground which
in fact been projected is that one day after the decree was passed, the Counsel
engaged by the petitioner died and therefore, the petitioner was totally in dark
and he did not know about the fate of the suit. It is also contended that he came
to know about the decree only when a Miscellaneous Application was taken out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
in connected Appeal filed by the petitioner and pending before this Court in
A.S. No.823 of 2008 and thereafter, steps have been taken to apply for certified
copies of the judgement and decree and the appeal has been filed in the
interregnum period since the delay has occasioned, the Application for
condonation of delay has also been taken out.
18. The revision petitioner, is admittedly an auction purchaser in a public
auction and according to the petitioner he has paid the entire auction purchase
money and sale deed has also been executed in his favour. As a prudent
purchaser, the petitioner cannot be expected to contend that having engaged a
Counsel and filed a written statement in the year 2007, the petitioner has not
taken any steps to follow up the suit and know the fate of the same. In fact,
such a submission on the face of the circumstances, appears to be not
believable, for the simple reason that the petitioner has been one of the
defendants in the other suit for partition in O.S. No.188 of 2004, which was
also being tried only before the Courts at Krishnagiri and having suffered a
preliminary decree in the said suit, the petitioner himself has also filed an
Appeal before this Court and the same is pending in A.S. No.823 of 2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
19. In such circumstances, to expect an auction purchaser to totally forget
about the pending cases and claim that he was not informed by the Counsel
about the decree passed, is certainly an excuse which cannot be bought. Courts
have repeatedly held that the litigants have to diligently follow up their cases
and only under circumstances where, despite all care and exercise of due
diligence, some adverse orders come to be passed exparte, then the Court can
step in and condone the delay in taking out appropriate applications. However,
in the present case, the petitioner has purchased the property way back in the
year 2004 and he admittedly, has been arrayed as defendant in the suit for
partition and the suit has been contested and a preliminary decree has been
passed in favour of the plaintiff in the said suit. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has alone preferred the First Appeal before this Court in A.S. No.823
of 2008. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner was totally ignorant of what
was happening with regard to the subject property.
20. The only reason which I am able to decipher from the entire affidavit
is that his counsel died on the very next day of the suit having been decreed and
none of the other Advocates in the Office counsels were in a position to follow
up the matter. Having entered appearance in the suit and also having filed
written statement way back on 06.08.2007, it was the duty of the petitioner to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
follow up the matter with the counsel. In fact, in the suit for partition in O.S.
No.188 of 2004, the revision petitioner has not only been arrayed as 7 th
defendant but he has also contested the said suit and the suit was decreed on
30.04.2008. Even in the said suit, the same counsel Mr.Sankara Narayanan
alone has represented the revision petitioner and aggrieved by judgment and
decree, the petitioner has also filed First Appeal before this Court, which is
admittedly pending. Therefore, having actively contested the suit for partition
and also having challenged the same by way of an Appeal before this Court as
late as 2008, to contend that the petitioner did not get any intimation from his
counsel in the other suit in O.S. No.1 of 2007, especially when the suit itself
has been filed to declare the very sale deed in favour of the petitioner as null
and void, is certainly not normal expected behaviour of a prudent or reasonable
litigant, whose purchase itself is being challenged. I do not find that the
petitioner has made out sufficient cause for the delay of 4591 days.
21. No doubt, each and every days delay is not required to be explained.
However, the cause which is shown by the petitioner should be sufficient and
acceptable, before the Court can take a decision to condone the delay. No
doubt, this Court in Joint Commissioner's case (referred herein supra) has held
that length of delay is immaterial, but however, even in the said decision, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
Court has reiterated that the delay can be condoned only when sufficient cause
is made out and in such circumstances, the length of delay would not be really
significant.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar's case (referred
herein supra), deprecated the practice of blaming the Advocate who appeared
for the party in the Trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even
if the lawyer concerned was careless or negligent, it cannot be a ground to
condone long and inordinate delay, as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of
his own rights and is expected to be vigilant about proceedings pending in the
Court. When the petitioner has engaged the very same Counsel for not only
defending the suit but also another suit and in view of the fact that even when
there was a necessity to apply for a certified copy of judgment and decree in
O.S. No.1 of 2007, the petitioner has in fact gone back to the very same
counsel's office and made the Copy Application would all go to show that the
petitioner is only projecting the death of his erstwhile counsel Mr.N.S.Sankara
Narayanan as an excuse, for not following the suit and cover up latches on his
part.
23. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner ought to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
been vigilant in contesting the suit and clearly, the petitioner has been careless
and indifferent for more than a decade. As rightly contended by the learned
Senior Counsel, Mr.A.K.Sriram, having filed the written statement in the suit,
which challenges the very purchase of the property by the petitioner, to state
that the petitioner never followed up the matter from 2008 onwards, for 17 long
years is clearly smacking of carelessness and indifference. Such acts of the
petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court.
24. As regard the other contention that since the other Appeal is pending
at the instance of the petitioner herein, challenging the preliminary decree
passed in O.S. No.188 of 2004, no prejudice would be caused, I do not see how
the pendency of the Appeal as against the decree for partition would have any
direct bearing on the present suit for setting aside the sale in favour of the
auction purchaser. The petitioner, having preferred the Appeal in A.S. No.823
of 2008, is well within his rights to prosecute the same on merits and in
accordance with law and merely because, the subject property in both the
Appeals is one and the same, it cannot give ground for the petitioner to seek
condonation of huge and inordinate delay that has occasioned purely on
account of his deliberate and careless attitude.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
25. In view of the above, I do not find that the petitioner has shown any
satisfactory reasons acceptable to the Court in order to condone the huge and
inordinate delay of 4591 days. I do not find any merits in the Civil
Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal Suit is rejected at the SR stage itself. No
costs.
26.09.2025
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
rkp
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Krishnagiri.
2.Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Special Recovery Branch Office,
Vaalmeeki Street, Subramaniya Nagar,
Salem:5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.J,
rkp
Pre-delivery order made in
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/10/2025 05:37:10 pm )
